NDP Gets Smart on Crime III
Mon, 2007-05-28 10:50
#1
NDP Gets Smart on Crime III
Mon, 2007-05-28 10:50
#2
This is a continuation from [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009415]this thread here.[/url]
Tue, 2007-05-29 20:02
#3
In reading through much of the first thread I found very little mention of actual cases or incidents. It seemed strange that no one brought up any actual events.
I think it's worth remembering that sentencing is supposed to achieve a variety of objectives, including punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence and denunciation. It may be that the latter two are not supposed to be considered in Youth Criminal Justice Act cases. But the notion often heard that punishment and deterence are never considerations is not the law in Canada.
As far as rehabilitation goes, I personally think there are instances where the need for rehabilitation will argue for a longer sentence. For example, when the courts have to sentence a chronic petty offender, a drug addict who has a few score or even a hundred or more convictions for theft and burglarly, giving him another short sentence of a few months just perpetuates the revolving door for society, and for the offender. A longer term away, say a couple of years, perhaps even three years, might give the psychologists and social workers and occupational instructors sufficient time to turn this person around.
And yes, I realize I haven't mentioned any particular cases either!
Wed, 2007-05-30 00:10
#4
The NDP has the most progressive anti-crime platform of any party, from investing in Canadian youth skills development to cracking down on white collar crime. White collar crime is costing the economy several billion dollars a year, far more than street crime and blue collar thefts. Corporate crime and government corruption costs the Canadian economy in terms of global competitiveness and lost confidence for foreign investment.
The NDP knows that Canada could be as competitive as Scandinavian and European social democracies, but Canadians have to decide if they want more of the same-old same-old from our tired and worn out old line parties lacking vision and real leadership, or do we want change?.
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/5332][b]NDP takes on unchecked corporate crime[/b][/url]
quote:
“Since the Bre-X scandal ten years ago, there have dozens of corporate swindles that have bilked average Canadians out of millions of dollars and no one is in jail because we don’t have the laws to put them there,” said Wasylycia-Leis. “We must overhaul corporate accounting practices and insider trading laws, and introduce accountability provisions. We must demand better from our public companies. The ‘wild west’ of financial markets must find a new sheriff.”
Canada's two old line parties have been way too soft on crime that pays.
Wed, 2007-05-30 13:42
#5
From a thoroughly capitalist point of view, I understand how Canada's reputation as a good place to invest suffers because of all the phone scams in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and other places.
By cleaning up corporate crime, we will see greater inbound investment flows, something all the NDP and its supporters truly want.
Fri, 2007-06-01 07:54
#6
Here is one actual case which appeared in the Maple Ridge News, a CanWest biweekly this Wednesday, May 30th. The link is only to the paper, links to individual stories are somehow hidden.
[url=http://www.mapleridgenews.com/]Maple Ridge News[/url]
quote:
[b]Drug dealer pleads guilty, no jail time[/b]By Monisha Martins
Staff ReporterMay 30 2007
A Maple Ridge resident charged with drug trafficking received a conditional sentence after pleading guilty to the charges in New Westminster Supreme Court.
Travis James Annett, 22, entered the guilty plea to five counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of careless storage of a firearm on Thursday.
He had been scheduled for trial in the first week of June in Port Coquitlam Provincial Court.
Judge Joanne Challenger sentenced Annett to a 12-month conditional sentence with a prohibition from owning firearms for 10 years.
His conditions include remaining in his home except for one hour of exercise each day between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m., performing 50 hours of community service, reporting to a supervisor and taking counselling.
Annett is not allowed into licensed establishments and must not consume illegal drugs.
He may leave his home for work, school, church, alcohol abuse support meetings or to visit his grandmother, but must return straight home.
He is also allowed to leave his home for an hour twice a week to shop.
RCMP in Maple Ridge said they are aware of Annett's conviction.
"Anytime we have people who have been convicted, we are always keeping them in the back of our minds," said Cpl. John MacDougall.
RCMP charged Annett in March last year after executing a search warrant at a home on 117 Avenue.
A pound of pure rock cocaine, a large zip-lock bag of marijuana, packaged crack cocaine and powered cocaine, ecstasy and pharmaceutical drugs, including Tylenol 3, were found in the house, from which police allege Annett ran a "dial-a-dope" operation.
Police also found $3,000 in cash and estimated the value of the all the drugs at $10,000.
In plain view were ammunition and three firearms: a 22-calibre Cooey rifle; a Chinese-made assault rifle-bayonet; and a palm-sized .22 calibre Beretta.
RCMP said the bust was the result of an investigation that began after concerned neighbours on 117 Ave., near Ridge Meadows Hospital, became suspicious about the house.
Despite Annett's arrest, neighbours allege the drug dealing continued.
In April this year, a frustrated neighbour posted a sign identifying the home as a crack den.
The weapons found scared many neighbours, including a woman with young children who lives nearby.
She said neighbours will be disappointed to hear Annett will not do time in prison.
"The law is so soft," she added.
I think it's important to realize that the disappointed member of the public who is quoted at the end is a neighbour of the offender, and who was in principle at least threatened by his reckless gun possession. She is not just someone vicariously influenced by Law and Order reruns or reading too many sensational tabloid rags on the way to work.
I think this case speaks very clearly to the NDP's stance that there should be minimum sentences for crimes involving guns.
Fri, 2007-06-01 08:16
#7
quote:
Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:
[b]I think this case speaks very clearly to the NDP's stance that there should be minimum sentences for crimes involving guns.[/b]
Normally I'd agree with you but in this case he was not accused of or convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime.
Fri, 2007-06-01 08:31
#8
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]Normally I'd agree with you but in this case he was not accused of or convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime.[/b]
That's a matter of interpretation. He was involved in trafficking and it's obvious he was armed in connection with that crime. I am sure his lawyer would argue that until he has actually shot one of his non-paying customers that they are just things he happens to have lying around for looks, but I personally don't accept that.
Fri, 2007-06-01 08:45
#9
I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. If he were arrested for something else, say income tax evasion, and they found an unsecured gun in the house, would he be guilty of committing a crime with a firearm?
No.
Fri, 2007-06-01 09:34
#10
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]If he were arrested for something else, say income tax evasion, and they found an unsecured gun in the house, would he be guilty of committing a crime with a firearm?[/b]
Only if he used it while being audited.
Fri, 2007-06-01 11:26
#11
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. If he were arrested for something else, say income tax evasion, and they found an unsecured gun in the house, would he be guilty of committing a crime with a firearm?No.[/b]
Income tax evasion is an offence, but not a crime in the Criminal Code sense. Drug trafficking is quite relevant, just as using it in an armed robbery would be.
Are you suggesting that this man posed no danger whatsoever to his neighbours, that he had no intention of shooting if other members of the underworld threatened him or his supplies?
Fri, 2007-06-01 14:53
#12
And I bet his house where he is to serve his sentence is many, many miles from the nearest judge's house.
Anywho, the restrictions are such that if the RCMP (new motto: "Wake us if there is an Inquiry") wants to bust him again, they can. Those are fairly strict conditions no one could adhere to.
Perhaps there was no jail time because he rolled over on his suppliers? Maybe the RCMP is about to make an arrest, say of a doctor who prescribed the pharmacueticals, or the pharmacuetical company executives?
Ha. I kill myself.
[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Fri, 2007-06-01 16:48
#13
laine lowe
quote:
new motto: "Wake us if there is an Inquiry"
That is very funny. Can I borrow the line?
Sat, 2007-06-02 05:05
#14
Actually, I was thinking of getting that printed up on a black t-shirt.
R.C.M.P. in big letters on the back across the shoulders in yellow, and the "motto" in smaller lettering in white below.
Yes, you can borrow it. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-06-02 19:42
#15
Responding to more than one post:
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm, Thread 1:
[b]Chuck Cadman was first elected as a Reform Party MP in 1997 and then re-elected as an Alliance MP in 2000. In both cases he ran as a virtual one issue candidate railing against the supposed leniency of the criminal justice system. His own son had been murdered by someone who kept committing violent crimes and then kept getting released with almost no punishment. In 2004, he lost the CPC nomination to some Indo-canadian guy who signed up thousands of "instant Conservatives". He then ran as an Independent campaigning almost exclusively on making the Young Offenders Act stricter etc...and won
That may be the case, but Cadman was also involved in counselling young offenders who had the potential to become violent. While he may have had views on criminal punishment with which few of us may have agreed, his counselling work suggested that he wasn't the big "tough-on-crime" guy that you're making him out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist, Thread 2:
[QB]The simple fact is that cops are never fired. In rare cases, they may face criminal charges, when even the blind can see their guilt. But dismissal? When was the last time you ever heard of such a thing?[/b]
[url=http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/HatchenMunson.htm]Dan Hatchen and Ken Munson in Saskatoon.[/url]
Sat, 2007-06-02 22:39
#16
quote:
That may be the case, but Cadman was also involved in counselling young offenders who had the potential to become violent. While he may have had views on criminal punishment with which few of us may have agreed, his counselling work suggested that he wasn't the big "tough-on-crime" guy that you're making him out to be.
I think you will find that his campaigns revolved almost entirely around "victims rights" and tougher penalties for young offenders. The fact that he did some counselling is nice - but if people wanted to vote for parties offering better social programs and tackling the causes of crime - they would have voted NDP. They voted for cadman because he ran a single issue campaign attacking the Young Offenders Act and people in Surrey North lapped it up.
Mon, 2007-06-04 10:38
#17
Though given Layton's "tough on crime" rhetoric maybe he isn't as different from Chuck Cadman as some people want to believe.
Mon, 2007-06-04 10:44
#18
Cadman talked about being "tough on crime" virtually to the exclusion of anything else. he was a single issue politician.
Layton seems to have given one speech a year and a half ago on crime - four fifths of which was about prevention and more social spending and one fifth of which mentioned stronger penalties for gun crimes. I have not heard very much from the NDP since then on this topic.
Mon, 2007-06-04 11:55
#19
So what the NDP slogan should be is: tough on crime but not quite as tough as the Conservatives?
Mon, 2007-06-04 11:56
#20
So what's your suggestion? "let's be weak on crime"
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:06
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]So what the NDP slogan should be is: tough on crime but not quite as tough as the Conservatives?[/b]
Tougher on corporate and white collar crime, too. Canada needs to build a reputation of integrity before we can be as economically competitive as the social democracies. If we don't ditch the two old line parties in Ottawa sometime soon, Canada will continue on as a third rate G8 economy and colonial preserve of cheap politicians and raw materials for the U.S. corporatocracy to exploit.
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:08
#22
How about:
"Fix crime before it happens."
Of course, that may be too humanist and socialistic for your taste...
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:18
#23
About 80% of Layton's speech on crime was about crime prevention. I guess you just don't like to take YES for an answer.
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:18
#24
Because after more than a hundred years of the two old line parties in power and sharing power in hOttawa, there is a risk that Canadian voters could be taken for granted. Rot and decay tends to take hold unless the halls of power are cleaned out every one hundred years or so. It's okay to exercise a little democracy now and then.
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:19
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Tougher on corporate and white collar crime, too.
How do you feel about the death penalty for white collar crime, Fidel?
Mon, 2007-06-04 12:28
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]How do you feel about the death penalty for white collar crime, Fidel?[/b]
I think it would represent a real deterrent to conflict of interest, influence peddling, kick-back, graft, corruption and betrayal of the public trust at the highest levels of society in general. Taxpayers would still have to cough up several million dollars for their defence in a trial, but there would be actual consequences.
ETA: There doesn't need to be anything extravagant. A lineup at dawn against a cement wall would suffice. We could sell them a last meal prepared by minimum wage labour, cigarette, and a blindfold made in China from recycled materials with GST and PST applicable. Absolutely, and you ?
[ 04 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Mon, 2007-06-04 14:03
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]About 80% of Layton's speech on crime was about crime prevention.[/b]
20% of pandering to redneck anti-human regressive sentiment is 20% too much. There is really no room for compromise on this issue of principle.
Mon, 2007-06-04 14:15
#28
I think most reasonable people will acknowledge that any realistic policy on crime and justice has to establish some balance between social programs that help to prevent crime as well as punishment of perpetrators and also recognition of how society's views of certain crimes have evolved.
A generation ago, we thought that drunk driving, hate crimes and sexual assault were no big deal. Now we take those crimes far more seriously and as a result our political system has responded by passing legislation demanding that these crimes be more heavily punished.
What's wrong with that? Or should we relax penalties against drunk drivers and send out the message that getting behind the wheel of a car while roaring drunk is "no big deal".
Mon, 2007-06-04 15:43
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I think most reasonable people will acknowledge that any realistic policy on crime and justice has to establish some balance between social programs that help to prevent crime as well as punishment of perpetrators and also recognition of how society's views of certain crimes have evolved.[/b]
Indeed.
But there was no reason - whatsoever - to advocate these two changes in Canada in 2006, except for trying to profit from some sensational headlines:
1. Increased minimum sentences for firearm offences;
2. Trying youth as adults because of the nature of the weapon they are alleged to have used.
It's not accidental that these policies were announced without ever having been approved by convention. They never would have passed.
Mon, 2007-06-04 20:19
#30
The thing I find puzzling about these crime threads is that most of the discussion is in the abstract. What is the philosophically correct approach to crime for a left of centre party. Longer sentences are a right wing thing. More rehabilitation and better preventive social programs are good left wing approaches. And so it goes.
But the public won't sit for this. They expect parties to solve problems, not to litmus test measures. Generally I find that people are sincerely outraged by light sentences handed out to people who have seriously injured or killed someone. I don't buy the explanation that they read too many tabloids or watched too much television.
Mon, 2007-06-04 21:27
#31
quote:
But there was no reason - whatsoever - to advocate these two changes in Canada in 2006, except for trying to profit from some sensational headlines:1. Increased minimum sentences for firearm offences;
2. Trying youth as adults because of the nature of the weapon they are alleged to have used.
It's not accidental that these policies were announced without ever having been approved by convention. They never would have passed.
Exactly. And these are policies that are fundamentally regressive, ineffective and counter-productive. They accomplish nothing except funneling public $$ to prison profiteers and pandering to the mass media hysteria about non-existent "increasing crime rates". 80% of Jack's crime program is excellent but that doesn't make the other 20% any less abhorrent.
quote:
But the public won't sit for this. They expect parties to solve problems, not to litmus test measures
The measures unionist references don't "solve problems" any more than the "war on drugs" does. They create problems, and distract resources and public discourse from the root causes of crime.
Mon, 2007-06-04 21:35
#32
quote:
Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:
[b]Generally I find that people are sincerely outraged by light sentences handed out to people who have seriously injured or killed someone. I don't buy the explanation that they read too many tabloids or watched too much television.[/b]
Generally when I was growing up, many people were sincerely shocked when they learned that the two nice men or two nice women living in their neighbourhood were a couple.
Many were sincerely disturbed/outraged when their child dated a Jew/Black/Catholic/Asian/person of the same sex.
Many sincerely didn't think abortion should be available "on demand".
Many sincerely believed in capital punishment.
Moral of the story: Even sincere people are capable of learning and moving forward.
Your use of the word "sincerely" to describe a backward, ignorant and vindictive sentiment doesn't make it any nicer. It highlights the need for progressive people to work harder, educate people about the sources of anti-social behaviour and the need to attack the root causes.
Or, we can pat them on the head, tell them they're right, and promise more prisons and longer sentences.
It's essential that we urge the NDP to follow Option A.
Mon, 2007-06-04 22:05
#33
Another one I never got to before, since noone else apparently disputed this:
[i]"I have news for you. If you want to hear REALLY hardline opinions and views on "criminality" you will get an earful of it from people who grew up in and/or live in very working class environments. It's people from the intelligentsia who have university degrees and are teachers and/or social workers (i.e. people like Jack Layton) who tend to have the most compassionate and NON-punitive attitudes towards perpetrators of crime."[/i]
Not quite that simple, like saying the working class is necessary more racist than others or more likely to welfare bash out of insecurity or lack of education. Maybe somewhat more on average than the most educated and secure, but really it's the middle class who eats up all the "get tough on crime" crap IMV. The working class are often the ones who see police brutality up close, alongside their general uselessness in protecting Them from the crime They're most likely to face. Nother fine distinction there.
They're also more likley to have family members running into trouble for stuff middle and upper class kids usually walk away from. The working class, such as it now is, is also becoming less white and less male. But they're still more likely to vote NDP than others despite the party's long reputation as being "soft" on crime. Servants of power are the ones selling all the true crime stories to the dumber religiously bound rednecks anyhow, but that's another target group that should be distinguished. Just thought it should be said. I think Layton is on the wrong track here as well, but maybe not so tough as meant to appear.
[ 04 June 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Mon, 2007-06-04 22:37
#34
[ 04 June 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Tue, 2007-06-05 01:23
#35
Well if that's an indication that I'm low class, so be it. [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] I'm simply thinking about crime in terms of cost to the economy and society in general. I think if they want to prevent the most expensive types of crimes, obviously they have to address white collar and corporate crime as well as "deferred" and unpaid corporate income taxes. Profitable corporations which don't pay their taxes should be dealt with. Are ordinary Canadians allowed to defer or go years and years without paying the feds what they owe?.
And like the NDP is saying, what about the ripoffs of workers and investment funds?. Apparently there are no laws in place to deal with certain corporate crimes that pay.
Tue, 2007-06-05 04:13
#36
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
[b]Another one I never got to before, since noone else apparently disputed this:[i]"I have news for you. If you want to hear REALLY hardline opinions and views on "criminality" you will get an earful of it from people who grew up in and/or live in very working class environments. ...[/i][/b]
I didn't bother with this anti-worker claptrap because it was already dealt with [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009407#00... threads ago[/url]:
quote:
Stockholm: "there are a lot of blue collar ridings across Canada where the NDP will be relentlessly attacked by the Conservatives for being "soft on crime"Unionist: "Blue collar? Oh, you mean backward stupid types like me and my fellow workers? Who want to bring back hanging?"
Stockholm: "Crime rates tend to be the highest in places where incomes are the lowest. You have a much better chance of beign robbed, beaten or shot in the Jane-Finch corridor than you do in Forest Hill..."
Unionist: "Right. That's why I said that "tough on crime" and "minimum sentences" and "try 'em in adult court" panders to backward and racist stereotypes. Funny that both of us are looking at the same facts, and you draw the conclusion that the poor, the people of colour, and the workers are reactionary."
And it goes on and on from there.
I think we're severely repeating ourselves.
I find it very heartening that babblers who are staunch NDP supporters - but who also have a head and a heart of their own - are prepared to be critical of Layton's unilateral policy shift on this issue. I'm sure this kind of debate is happening elsewhere and will help the NDP get back on the page of preventing crime through social, not vengeful, solutions.
Tue, 2007-06-05 11:48
#37
Fidel so you DO support the death penalty, or no? Please don't rant about frozen Puerto Rico with polar bears, Washington or old-line parties? I oppose it and I don't care if the people implementing it are "revolutionary" or "socialist"? I oppose it for Paul Bernardo and Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush and yes, Conrad Black and the "bad" Chinese bureaucrats. Period.
Stockholm it seems to me you're borrowing from Tony Blair's play-book on the crime issue. Isn't he the one who said tough on criminals, tough on the casues of crime or something of that order?
Tue, 2007-06-05 12:07
#38
...and he was right.
Fri, 2007-06-08 16:41
#39
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Generally when I was growing up, many people were sincerely shocked when they learned that the two nice men or two nice women living in their neighbourhood were a couple.Many were sincerely disturbed/outraged when their child dated a Jew/Black/Catholic/Asian/person of the same sex.
...
Your use of the word "sincerely" to describe a backward, ignorant and vindictive sentiment doesn't make it any nicer. It highlights the need for progressive people to work harder, educate people about the sources of anti-social behaviour and the need to attack the root causes.
[/b]
This is really outrageous sophistry, a classic example of rigidly correct political thinking.
The brutal murder of Aaron Webster in Vancouver's Stanley Park is a classic example of a case where people are outraged by the incredibly light sentences handed out to both teens and adults involved. One of those who was angry about it was Svend Robinson. See if you can squeeze that into your ideological pigeon holes.
Fri, 2007-06-08 17:31
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]...and he was right.[/b]
I agree too - though it's important to remember that Blair failed to a good extent on the "causes of crime" part since inequality of various kinds is such a cause.
Fri, 2007-06-08 21:52
#41
No doubt poverty and poor health and addiction can be associated with higher crime rates in certain areas.
But surely we need to realize that in our society crime pays. It's not poverty that produces the rational criminal, it's the propect of immense wealth.
Sat, 2007-06-09 07:53
#42
quote:
But surely we need to realize that in our society crime pays.
Look no further than Conrad Black.
Sat, 2007-06-09 09:39
#43
About Tony Blair's "stance", Stockholm commented that "he (Blair) is right".
Yes, Sockholm! He is right for not caring about in what social and economic strata Black youth are in British society. He is right to "lurch into complete frankness", cowardly hiding behind what he purported Rev Nims Obunge had said: "when are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community?".
I doubt Blair ever said something like When are we going to start saying that racism, unemployment and poverty is a problem amongst a section of British society?
The hypocrite. It takes a hypocrite to agree with a hypocrite.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6548403.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk...
You are a fake NDPer, Stockholm. You are a fraud.
Sat, 2007-06-09 10:43
#44
Since you keep telling us that the NDP is a party of white supremacists (sic.) I will take your accusation that I am a "fake NDPer" as a complement.
Sat, 2007-06-09 12:36
#45
You are a liar, Stockholm. I never said that the NDP is the Party of White Supremacists.
There are racists in all parties. But I do not accept that the NDP/ONDP habour racists, because I am a NDPer (while you are a fake). Perhaps just someone with the task to "educate" the left on matters on which you feel they need some education, such as How bad Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Cuba, China etc.. and How rosy life for the savage Palestinians under Israeli's benevolent occupation.
Here is my response to a Babbler who questioned my concern about the ONDP for the reason that I criticized its administration of human rights justice:
quote:
Since you asked:
I have been -and still am- a card-carrying, active member of the ONDP for the last 20 years (since I moved from Quebec -City- to Ontario). Unlike you and some other NDPers, I never allowed nor will I ever allow my political partisanship to trump my committment to the principles of human rights, equality and fairness.
You may have a reason to allow your partisanship to trump issues of human rights as they pertain to non whites. You are a white male in a white male centered society and therefore you are in no way personally concerned, you are almost totally immune.
I criticized and will criticize the ONDP for its flip-flops in the area of human rights, its dismal record and its discriminatory practices in enforcing human rights laws.
I am more in tune with the Charter and principles of the ONDP than some spineless cowards in the higher ranks of the ONDP. I am the NDPer and they are the frauds. I contend that they have to be purged, not up to me to leave.
I will not leave the ONDP and I even pushed many, many times (and will continue to push) the envelope in order to have the ONDP move to expel me on the grounds of my denunciation of their human rights record. Obviously they are not keen to do anything that would expose the rot.
So, (name of Babbler), you and I belong to the same Party, share same political beliefs and principles, are committed to same causes etc.. Where do we part company is in the reality that you are a white male in a white male centered society and perhaps to you enforcement or non enforcement of Ontario's human rights law is no different than enforcement or non enforcement of Ontario's Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act. (Actually, if you are a farmer, you might be more interested in the latter, which is your right, I concede).
Did you count how many Babblers wondered whether you really belong to NDP ranks, Stockholm ?
Sat, 2007-06-09 13:27
#46
Well, I still think that if there is to be serious reform when it comes to crime, then reform has to start at the top.
In the last year, in the federal parliament and in various provincial legislatures we have seen liars walk away unpunished. Cabinet ministers that claim the deffence of "I wasn't aware" when it is thier [b]JOB[/b] to be aware. Liars and frauds.
Start here.
But one of the basic principles we should be trying to instil is that everyone is beneath the law and equal under the law.
Unfortunately, Fidel, as tempting and as righteous as it may seem, we just can't take Zachardelli out and shoot him. All we can hope for is Zachardelli to have a momentary bout with honour, and do the job for us.
Contrary to the impression my more excited rhetoric might have imparted, with gritted teeth I would refrain from a legal "riegn of terror" where the rich and powerfull faced more dire consequences for thier law breaking than those of lesser power and affluence.
They do tempt one, though, don't they?
The other leg on this table of reform should be a system that is heavy on restitution. If you damage someone, or their property, they you pay to the penny, if it takes the rest of your working life.
Fair enough, in my books.
There are crimes where there is not a possibility of restitution. Serious crimes where we fear that the guilty party-- having once demonstrated a clear disdain for the rights and liberties of others-- may act in this way again.
We need a prison on Baffin Island for these people. A nice one, a safe one.
And a very lonely one.
But we can't have that if we do not have a court system that we do not trust. Our current one has demonstrated time and again that it is not trustworthy.
A clean up of the bench, and of Crown Attourney's is long over due. And we need to enforce laws against Crown's that abuse their position, and serious consequences for that abuse.
It's the same as I've said before, only I rearranged the words.
Sat, 2007-06-09 14:15
#47
remind
I agree with the NDP's stance, as stated by Jack at his speech at SFU, it is a clear statement on just where the NDP stand on crime, as follows:
1. Prevention of crime with social programs and education. We know that crimes are decreasing because of the success of the social programs we already have, imagine if they were broader and better funded!
2. The need to recruit more RCMP. There are significant shortages. Along with community policing, there needs to be a special section specific for white collar crime, along with the other types of organized crime.
3. Mandatory minimums for those who possess, sell, and import illegal arms, and also for all those who use guns in committing a crime. with the focus being on those who would be considered at high risk to re-offend.
Why? Because coupled with those mandatory minimums would be:
quote:
Drug-treatment, counseling, skills training and community support all must be in place and adequately resourced to ensure successful integration into society. It is a great scandal that in our prisons these programs are so poorly resourced and staffed
and
quote:
it is time for a thorough review of our corrections system to ensure we have in place the measures to ensure successful rehabilitation and to prevent repeat offences....programs that re-invest proceeds of crime can go along way to healing the community by investing that money back into the community. This can go and help business improvement areas, municipal infrastructure and helping to build more secure communities.
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/4828/print]http://www.ndp.ca/page/4828/print[/url]
I also, like the fact that he noted the current government motives in getting tough on crime for reasons of vengence, while the NDP's stance is to heal the community and the individual.
[ 09 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Sat, 2007-06-09 14:40
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Look no further than Conrad Black.[/b]
You can take that as a politically correct example for left wing consumption if your want. But those are rare examples. The police estimate there are something like 18,000 or more grow-ops in BC, each grossing an average of between half a million and a million a year. That would make it far and away the biggest grossing industry in the province.
These people are buying up homes, and because they have no budget constraint, they are helping to drive up prices, though to what degree would be a bit of a statistical problem to figure out. The burgeoning market for high-priced, luxury pickup trucks relies heavily on these people. Their operations are often in ordinary homes and subdivisions, and sometimes the caretakers are armed. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it's only a matter of time before some of those weapons are actually used on a regular residential street.
If it's fair to say that in Canada our laws and authorities would never have compelled Conrad Black to stand trial for anything, and I suspect that is the case, it's true that the operators of these grow plants are generally receiving small sentences even when they are armed and present a danger. I gave an example above.
Sat, 2007-06-09 15:06
#49
Crime statistics for North America say that white collar crime is worth ten times that of blue collar crime every year. Think of the money that could be saved by targeting real crooks.
Sat, 2007-06-09 15:13
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Crime statistics for North America say that white collar crime is worth ten times that of blue collar crime every year. Think of the money that could be saved by targeting real crooks.[/b]
Well, which category do the grow ups fall into? Which category do the Hells Angels fall into?
Sat, 2007-06-09 15:17
#51
I am more concerned about crimes of violence than i am of crimes against property. If someone robs me or commits tax evasion or fraud or embezzlement - I can survive. but if i am murdered or assaulted or raped - I will never recover. For that reason i think that penalties for violent crimes shojdl always be far more strict than penalties for money and property crimes.